Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Deja Vu >>> OFF TOPIC

This is topic Deja Vu >>> OFF TOPIC in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001206

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-22-2006, 10:12 AM:

This one could have been really good and I thought it was going to be up until the last 20 minutes. The payoff is definitely not worth it and there are no major twists that a movie like this should have.

[ 12-18-2006, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-22-2006, 02:40 PM:

How's the seizure-cam work on this? It looked pretty intense in the trailer. I just want to know if I should avoid it. I'd hate to end up in a coma from watching another Tony Scott film.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-22-2006, 03:14 PM:

I saw about 3 minutes of this. The first two minutes was when I walked into an auditorium and said to the guy screening it "how is it". The response was "it just started a couple of minutes ago but I have a feeling there will be a huge explosion any second now". Right then BOOOM!!!!

I then saw about another minute through the port window. This *appears* to be the same old Bruckheimer/Tony Scott seizure cam/fast editing bullshit that we have all seen over and over before.

At least the print had amazing color, contrast and sharpness. [thumbsup]

On the other hand it does have Denzel in it. I saw an interview of him a year or two back where he was going on and on about how racist the world is and how he has to make the white man understand that black people are real people, blah, blah, blah. Some of his comments were racist to the point of being offensive. I lost a lot of respect for the man after seeing that. Maybe there is a clip on youtube or something.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-22-2006, 04:11 PM:

Yeah, Denzel probably had something to do with it. He plays every single role exactly the same.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 11-23-2006, 11:47 PM:

This movie was a huge disappointment. Tony Scott's career had been progressing very nicely. Starting with ENEMY OF THE STATE, his style became very experimental. With each film, he built on what he'd done before until DOMINO came out. That movie was a masterpiece. I was very excited to see the next step in his evolutionary process, but instead, he took a couple steps back. DEJA VU is so fracking standard and boring, it makes me wanna cry.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-24-2006, 09:31 AM:

Just OK....should be a hit on the airplane....if they can play it. Louis

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 12-15-2006, 06:11 PM:

Agreed, The picture was crisp & clear for the majority of the film.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-17-2006, 06:47 PM:

Domino was a masterpiece? Please explain.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2006, 07:50 PM:

Uh, yeah. Ditto that.

Lately Tony Scott has seemed more like an older version of Michael Bay. His movies just seem to play like 2 hour long movie trailers rather than a real movie. It's the Japanese car commercial school of film making.

Crimson Tide is the last movie Tony Scott has made that I really liked.

Enemy of the State was entertaining in parts, but had a great deal of outright bullshit concerning what can be done with computer and video technology. I defy anyone anywhere to take a shitty video image from a surveillance camera's CCD and then rotate the image around Matrix-style in 3D space. Laughable, distracting bullshit. I guess you don't notice those maddening problems if one simply unplugs his brain.

Spy Game is where I think Tony Scott really went overboard with the all style no substance thing and he seems to have been repeating himself ever since.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-18-2006, 01:58 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Domino was a masterpiece? Please explain.

On some commentary track somewhere, John McTiernan talks about how the medium of movies is locked into this narrative form which is ultimately self-destructive. He talks about music, and how the work of someone like Mozart transcends language and culteral barriers and impacts people on an emotional and visceral level which is only possible in a piece of abstract art. He thinks that movies haven’t nearly begun to realize their full potential, and won’t until filmmakers throw away their need to tell stories, at least in such a painfully literal fashion. He also thinks that someday there will be a filmmaker who does with film what Mozart did with music. As I see it, DOMINO is the best example of a mainstream movie to successfully take steps in this direction.

The movie is built from the ground up as a biography which is not factually accurate, but emotionally accurate. Every aspect of the film, from the script to the casting to the photography to the editing, is designed not to show you what this person did, but who she was.

I’ve said this many times in the past and I’ll say it many more times in the future, but movies are a lame medium for telling stories. What can you do in two hours? Not much. People always complain about style getting in the way of a good story. Well, frack that. Style’s the only thing most movies have going for them. If you want good writing, stay home and watch TV. That’s a writer’s medium. As far as DOMINO’s concerned, the plot actually does work. But who the hell knows what’s going on in it? Better yet, who cares? Scott has found a way to make the best of his short time span by stripping the story down to its essence, which is characters. The plot may be all over the place, but the characters are consistent. You may not know what’s going on in the movie, but emotionally you’re there every step of the way.

This is achieved with the help of the photography and editing which present a constant stream of information which the viewer can sometimes only process on a visceral level. But that’s all that’s needed. It makes the movie a much more interactive experience. And if you do choose to go back and rewatch the film with a more distanced analytical eye, layers upon layers of text come to the surface.

All of that (and Keira Knightley) is why DOMINO is a masterpiece.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-18-2006, 10:29 AM:

quote: Mike Schindler
As far as DOMINO’s concerned, the plot actually does work. But who the hell knows what’s going on in it?

Those two sentences don't even make sense. If you don't know what's going on, how do you know it makes sense?

quote: Mike Schindler
Scott has found a way to make the best of his short time span by stripping the story down to its essence, which is characters.

I don't remember caring about any of the characters in Domino. And if the movie watcher isn't emotionally invested in the characters, then you lose them. Spielberg is (or at least WAS) one of the best directors when it comes to getting you emotionally involved in the characters within five minutes of the opening credits.

quote: Mike Schindler
The plot may be all over the place, but the characters are consistent.

Yeah... they're consistently out of focus, they're consistently in and out of frame, they consistently flash and change color, they're consistently shaking all over the freakin screen...

quote: Mike Schindler
You may not know what’s going on in the movie, but emotionally you’re there every step of the way.

You're right that I didn't know what was going on. But emotionally, I felt like I was on drugs or having a seizure. Hence my coining of the phrase "Seizure-Cam."

quote: Mike Schindler
This is achieved with the help of the photography and editing which present a constant stream of information which the viewer can sometimes only process on a visceral level.

I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent guy, but unfortunately I couldn't process it at all.

quote: Mike Schindler
It makes the movie a much more interactive experience.

Well, I did keep turning to my date to ask "What the hell is going on here??"

quote: Mike Schindler
And if you do choose to go back and rewatch the film

Why the hell would I do that?? I only go back and rewatch movies that I enjoyed sitting through the first time. And to actually PAY to see it? I am sure Domino enjoyed lots of repeat business.

quote: Mike Schindler
All of that (and Keira Knightley) is why DOMINO is a masterpiece.

Which I suppose is why it made $20 million dollars world-wide.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-18-2006, 01:35 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Those two sentences don't even make sense. If you don't know what's going on, how do you know it makes sense?

When I say that the plot works, I mean that there aren't any logic gaps. For example, there aren't any video cameras that can record data in a 3-D space. But the plot isn't carried out in the typical, easy to understand, hit the nail right on the head, Hollywood fashion. It doesn't need to be because it's not important that the viewer understands everything. In many ways, the form is more important than the content in this movie. But if you do choose to go back and dissect it, everything in the movie works.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
I don't remember caring about any of the characters in Domino. And if the movie watcher isn't emotionally invested in the characters, then you lose them. Spielberg is (or at least WAS) one of the best directors when it comes to getting you emotionally involved in the characters within five minutes of the opening credits.

This is a matter of personal taste. For me, I love Spielberg, but his movies also have a way of oversimplifying things to the point of boredom. With DOMINO, Scott had me from Scene 1.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Yeah... they're consistently out of focus, they're consistently in and out of frame, they consistently flash and change color, they're consistently shaking all over the freakin screen...

Obviously, I was talking about the characters themselves, and not how they're presented. But since you brought it up, the look of this film is amazing. I didn't notice much out of focus. Yeah, they use pretty long lenses sometimes with really shallow focus, but this enables them to draw the viewer's attention to where it should be. Likewise, if anything is out of frame, it's because the frame is constantly changing. It's playing catch-up with the action, which creates a sense a realism that draws the viewer into the film. It also creates a sense of chaos which is very appropriate to the subject matter. The flashing results from the use of a hand-cranked camera which, again, enforced the film's overall aesthetic by keeping things frenetic, while also allowing the filmmakers to make multiple exposures to the negative, thus subjecting the viewer to even more information in a limited amount of time. The color is an aesthetic choice, more eye-candy than anything else, but the colors are beautiful in this movie, so why complain? And everyone seems to hate the hand-held camera except me. Not just in this movie, but in every movie. I guess that's just how I was brought up. When a movie sticks a camera on some sort of stabilizing device, it immediately draws me out of the movie because it looks staged and fake and boring. I'm much more interested in something that looks like it was found instead of planned out from the beginning. And I know all of the arguments against what I just said. What it boils down to is a matter of upbringing and personal preference. No one's right or wrong. It's like arguing whether or not red is a better color than blue (just for the record, it's not).

quote: Mark J. Marshall
You're right that I didn't know what was going on. But emotionally, I felt like I was on drugs or having a seizure. Hence my coining of the phrase "Seizure-Cam."

If someone were to say to me, "This movie makes you feel like you're on drugs or having a seizure," I'd be like, "I have to see that movie NOW!" Most movies are so boring and passive that when one comes along which actually makes me feel something, even if it's something awful, I just latch onto it. That's what happened to me with DOMINO. I got half-way through the movie and realized that I was not aware of a single cut thus far. I had no concept of the editor's role in this work. That's when I knew that the movie had me.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent guy, but unfortunately I couldn't process it at all.

I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence. I think it has more to do with what preconceptions you had going into it. The same thing happened to me with THE FOUNTAIN. I thought it was going to be one thing. But when it turned out to be something else, I couldn't separate it form what I thought it would be, and it didn't work for me. I blame marketing. Trailers suck.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Why the hell would I do that?? I only go back and rewatch movies that I enjoyed sitting through the first time. And to actually PAY to see it? I am sure Domino enjoyed lots of repeat business.

Well, I wasn't referring to you specifically. I wouldn't rewatch a movie I didn't like either. But one of the reasons why I consider it to be a masterpiece is because it's dense, and has more and more to offer with each repeated viewing.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Which I suppose is why it made $20 million dollars world-wide.

Yes, and it's a very well-established fact that financial success is a great way of determining artistic merit.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-18-2006, 02:05 PM:

Well, I guess we just have very different tastes. But it sounds like we might share common ground on two things.

1. To the extent that Domino "worked" for me (which was practically a ZERO), The Fountain "worked" less.

2. Red is definitely not a better color than blue.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2006, 03:01 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
On some commentary track somewhere, John McTiernan talks about how the medium of movies is locked into this narrative form which is ultimately self-destructive. He talks about music, and how the work of someone like Mozart transcends language and culteral barriers and impacts people on an emotional and visceral level which is only possible in a piece of abstract art.

That's all fine and good, but John McTiernan left out a couple of very key points.

1. A motion picture is primarily a story-telling medium meant to communicate effectively to a very wide, diverse audience. Unfortunately, effective communication often means holding to some well proven story telling conventions. If you go off too far in artsy la la land you'll lose a great deal of the audience in the process.

2. Works of abstract art are very open to interpretation and are very often misunderstood by viewers, even viewers who consider themselves experts on art. Lots of so-called modern art does not speak effectively to a wide audience, much less even capture the attention of wide audiences.

Major movie releases cost a shit load of money to produce, market and distribute. Studios want as many people as possible to comprehend (not to mention be entertained) by what they see.

If a film maker like Tony Scott wants to put together a piece of abstract motion art, he can do like so many other motion graphics artists have done: get some art gallery space booked and put on an art show. Serve wine and cheese, invite super models and lots of rich snooty people to the opening night party.

A movie like Domino isn't exactly what I would consider art house fare either. Not to put down people who only like action movies, but the folks who make up that particular market seem to enjoy lots of conventional story telling as long as it is punctuated with enough gun fire and explosions.

quote: Mike Schindler
For example, there aren't any video cameras that can record data in a 3-D space. But the plot isn't carried out in the typical, easy to understand, hit the nail right on the head, Hollywood fashion.

No. It just reminds me I'm only watching a movie where some dumb ass involved in the production thought, "wouldn't it be cool if the CIA could extract 3D images from a cheapie surveillance CCD camera," without bothering to consider if it was even physically possible at all. I won't even get into the issue that very few surveillance camera systems have been actively networked into the Internet.
[Roll Eyes]

A movie maker can try doing all the "visceral" stuff he wants. But when he inserts bullshit into the story that is outright implausible it offends my abilities to suspend my disbelief. I just start rolling my eyes thinking "bullshit."

quote: Mark J. Marshall
You're right that I didn't know what was going on. But emotionally, I felt like I was on drugs or having a seizure. Hence my coining of the phrase "Seizure-Cam."

I liked Brad Miller's suggestion of putting a certain director's head in a paint shaker for 2 hours so he could understand what he is doing to audiences everywhere.

At the very least, all the seizure cam work, and other way overdone camera moves as well, distracts me away from being involved with the story. The overblown technique calls too much attention to itself and reminds everyone "it's only a movie."

quote: Mike Schindler
Yes, and it's a very well-established fact that financial success is a great way of determining artistic merit.

Well, money does happen to be the barometer Hollywood (and most other forms of business) uses.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-18-2006, 03:36 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Well, I guess we just have very different tastes. But it sounds like we might share common ground on two things.

1. To the extent that Domino "worked" for me (which was practically a ZERO), The Fountain "worked" less.

2. Red is definitely not a better color than blue.

quote: Bobby Henderson
A motion picture is primarily a story-telling medium meant to communicate effectively to a very wide, diverse audience. Unfortunately, effective communication often means holding to some well proven story telling conventions. If you go off too far in artsy la la land you'll lose a great deal of the audience in the process.

Again, this is all about preconceptions. Why does film have to be a stroytelling medium? Wouldn't busting out of that convention go a long way towards making new and different movies instead of the same old shit over and over again? As far as abstract art goes, I think that classical music has proven that it can have a large audience and communicate effectively.

quote: Bobby Henderson
A movie like Domino isn't exactly what I would consider art house fare either. Not to put down people who only like action movies, but the folks who make up that particular market seem to enjoy lots of conventional story telling as long as it is punctuated with enough gun fire and explosions.

I absolutely agree with you on this. Both art house people and action people are too close-minded to accept something like DOMINO. That's why a movie like DOMINO is important, because it bridges the gap.

quote: Bobby Henderson
No. It just reminds me I'm only watching a movie where some dumb ass involved in the production thought, "wouldn't it be cool if the CIA could extract 3D images from a cheapie surveillance CCD camera," without bothering to consider if it was even physically possible at all. I won't even get into the issue that very few surveillance camera systems have been actively networked into the Internet.

A movie maker can try doing all the "visceral" stuff he wants. But when he inserts bullshit into the story that is outright implausible it offends my abilities to suspend my disbelief. I just start rolling my eyes thinking "bullshit."

I think you misinterpreted my statement. I agree with you on this. My point was that DOMINO doesn't have any of that bullshit. Everything in the movie makes sense.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Well, money does happen to be the barometer Hollywood (and most other forms of business) uses.

And that's exactly why most movies suck.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2006, 06:12 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Again, this is all about preconceptions. Why does film have to be a stroytelling medium? Wouldn't busting out of that convention go a long way towards making new and different movies instead of the same old shit over and over again? As far as abstract art goes, I think that classical music has proven that it can have a large audience and communicate effectively.

Music, overall, is also a bad thing to use as a comparison to movies on what people find entertaining. People listen to music on a different, more subconscious level. It's often used as background for other activities (work, exercise, parties, etc.). Music is more portable and enjoyed in more solitary ways. People only seem to gather in crowds to listen to music when it is performed live.

On the topic of classical music, most music stores have very little of it. Sometimes the only classical sounding music you're going to find is in the form of motion picture score CDs.

Why does film have to be a storytelling medium? That's what the public wants most.

Experimental film is nothing new. Lots of different things have been tried, even back in the earliest days of film. The more artsy, non-conventional methods had limited appeal and drew only small crowds. Some true art films are still made and still draw only limited levels of interest.

A good story driven by well defined characters involves an audience far greater than any sort of abstract motion art piece. That sort of convention has the hook of getting the audience personally involved in the experience -but only if it is well executed.

quote: Mike Schindler
And that's exactly why most movies suck.

The influence of money does indeed make a lot of movies suck. However, the movie business is still a business before anything else.

Movies cost an incredible amount of money to produce, market and distribute. The act of using all that borrowed money to do something abstract and unconventional is highly risky, especially when it probably won't connect with very many audience members at all.

And Domino largely didn't connect with audiences and it bombed terribly with critics. The movie finished with a dismal 17% on Rotten Tomatoes tomato-meter (116 negative reviews out of 140 counted).

I also don't find much of anything innovative with Domino (or Deja Vu). It's a bunch of hyper-edited, over processed stuff that plays like a 128 minute Japanese car commercial on crack. The Rock was enough of a statement in that kind of movie making, and even that one is pretty silly to watch on repeat viewings.

I think that form of over-stylized film making has run low on its appeal and its time for a change. It's time for film makers to stop copying slo mo character pose camera shots and edit moves from John Woo movies. It's time to stick the camera on a tripod or dolly and stop shaking the living hell out of it.

This over-stylized kind of movie making has reached the same silly phase as hair band metal did before it died out suddenly in 1990.

If I'm going to loosely throw around the word "art" when describing a movie meant for mainstream consumption, I'd rather put the label on something more challenging like Memento from Christopher Nolan. Now that's a movie I'd call "unconventional."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2006, 06:19 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I’ve said this many times in the past and I’ll say it many more times in the future, but movies are a lame medium for telling stories. What can you do in two hours? Not much.

This should go down in the list as one of the dumbest things ever said in the history of Film-Tech (if not the planet Earth).

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-18-2006, 06:50 PM:

No, I think Matthew Baileys LEgo projector idea was the dumbest.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-18-2006, 07:33 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
This should go down in the list as one of the dumbest things ever said in the history of Film-Tech (if not the planet Earth).

Thank you for the kind words, Mike. You're a class act.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the AFI Top 100 list is indicative of what the general educated film community considers to be the best the medium has to offer. Let's also assume that those same people consider story to be the spine upon which any good movie is built. Six of the top ten movies are based on books, and of those, four are closer to three hours than two. In addition to this, how many times have you heard someone utter the phrase, "The book is always better than the movie"? Why do you think TV is better than movies these days? Because you have about 17 hours a year to tell a story in that medium. Why do you think people like Tarantino, Lucas, Soderbergh, Peter Jackson, and even the fracking James Bond writers are choosing to break their stories up into multiple parts? Because you can't do shit in two hours.

Now, I'm not saying that movies are bad. Obviously, there are well-written movies. But when compared to the other long-form media, forget it. Film doesn't come close. Movies are like candy. They taste really good, but lack substance. TV is where the stories are. Give me STUDIO 60 over DEJA VU any day of the week. I stand by my statement 100%.

[ 12-19-2006, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Mike Schindler ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2006, 10:03 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
In addition to this, how many times have you heard someone utter the phrase, "The book is always better than the movie"? Why do you think TV is better than movies these days? Because you have about 17 hours a year to tell a story in that medium. Why do you think people like Tarantino, Lucas, Soderbergh, Peter Jackson, and even the fracking James Bond writers are choosing to break their stories up into multiple parts? Because you can't do shit in two hours.

That's a bunch of baloney. I've seen great movies clock in at under 90 minutes.

Further, you're making more apples to oranges comparisons by bringing up books and TV. Even with that, you're still undermining your argument that Domino is somehow a "masterpiece" and that movies need to abandon the conventional practice of story telling.

The truth is most books and TV shows are written in the form of stories as well. Of course you have exceptions in that regard with text books and "reality TV" shows. Still, those items are put together in a logical narrative where the reader or viewer can anticipate getting from point A to point Z.

quote: Mike Schindler
But when compared to the other long-form media, forget it. Film doesn't come close. Movies are like candy. They taste really good, but lack substance.

And Domino has substance?

If you have such a lack of respect for the movie making medium why bother posting in a forum called "Film-Tech?"

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 12-18-2006, 10:53 PM:

17% rating for Domino on Rotten Tomatoes

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2006, 11:09 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Movies are like candy. They taste really good, but lack substance. TV is where the stories are.

Well, now you're topping yourself.

First of all, a good story is a good story, no matter where or how it's presented. Some stories are longer than others. Some stories are only a few lines. One of my favorite stories is a 1956 item called "Contents of the Dead Man's Pockets," which is about a ten-minute read. (It wouldn't make a good movie, it's too short.)

Second - you must be a very young person to be able to dismiss movies in such a blanket way. Movies have been entertaining people, and satisfying them, for over 100 years. Some of the most acclaimed pieces of American art are movies. The ratio of crap on TV versus the good stuff is FAR higher than it is with movies, I'll guarantee you that. TV has only recently evolved into an occasional sophisticated storytelling medium. Before the 1980s when VHS came along, quite a few of the "special events" on TV were....movies.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-19-2006, 12:29 AM:

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-19-2006, 02:15 AM:

OK. To start, I made a major typo in my last post. I left the word "not" out of the sentence, "Now, I'm not saying movies are bad." That was a big mistake, and I fixed it. Sorry about that. Also, I may not have been clear in previous posts, but I don't think a story has to be long in order to be good. What I meant was that longer stories tend to be better. Even that's a generalization which I think is true most of the time, but of course not always. Anyway, moving on to some of the points which were brought up...

quote: Bobby Henderson
That's a bunch of baloney. I've seen great movies clock in at under 90 minutes.

Me too! I'm not saying that it can't be done. I'm saying that movies are limited in the stories that they can tell. Other media aren't. However, there are other things that can be accomplished on film that can't be in, say, books. So why not focus on those things which make film unique?

quote: Bobby Henderson
Further, you're making more apples to oranges comparisons by bringing up books and TV.

I don't think the comparison is apples to oranges. Every story which can be told in film can be also be told in those other two media. The opposite is not true.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Even with that, you're still undermining your argument that Domino is somehow a "masterpiece" and that movies need to abandon the conventional practice of story telling.

How so?

quote: Bobby Henderson
The truth is most books and TV shows are written in the form of stories as well. Of course you have exceptions in that regard with text books and "reality TV" shows. Still, those items are put together in a logical narrative where the reader or viewer can anticipate getting from point A to point Z.

I'm not proposing that books and TV stop telling stories. I'm saying that they do that really well. I'm not proposing that movies stop either. What I am proposing is that movies branch out into other forms which play to the medium's strengths, just like books and TV have.

quote: Bobby Henderson
And Domino has substance?

No, it tastes good. But don't take that as an absolute (only a Sith deals in absolutes).

quote: Bobby Henderson
If you have such a lack of respect for the movie making medium why bother posting in a forum called "Film-Tech?"

I have a lot of respect for it. I love movies. Maybe not for the same reasons as you, but I don't really think that that's a problem. All I'm saying is that I want movies to be better than they already are. Is there really anything wrong with that?

quote: Mike Blakesley
First of all, a good story is a good story, no matter where or how it's presented. Some stories are longer than others. Some stories are only a few lines. One of my favorite stories is a 1956 item called "Contents of the Dead Man's Pockets," which is about a ten-minute read. (It wouldn't make a good movie, it's too short.)

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. If you can tell a story in two hours, fantastic. If you can tell a story in ten minutes, even better. But like you said, ten minutes doesn't work for movies. The same thing's true if a story is ten hours. But literature can accomodate all three of those lengths, which is why it's a better medium for telling stories.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Second - you must be a very young person to be able to dismiss movies in such a blanket way. Movies have been entertaining people, and satisfying them, for over 100 years. Some of the most acclaimed pieces of American art are movies. The ratio of crap on TV versus the good stuff is FAR higher than it is with movies, I'll guarantee you that. TV has only recently evolved into an occasional sophisticated storytelling medium. Before the 1980s when VHS came along, quite a few of the "special events" on TV were....movies.

I'm not dismissing movies at all. I think they have a lot to offer, and they've been entertaining and satisfying me for over 26 years. I would totally agree that my favorite pieces of American art are movies. And you're right that there's a much higher percentage of crap on TV than there is at the local multiplex. But I would argue that at this point in time, the best that TV has to offer is better than the best that movies have to offer. I would agree with you that TV's worth has only come about recently. That has everything to do with VHS, because producers no longer have to worry about people missing parts of the story. And the reason why special events on TV were movies is quite simply because movies were better than TV.

Adam, thank you for pointing out to people that I like watching movies. I don't know where the perception that I don't came from, but I find it kinda weird. So I'm more interested in form than content. Big damn deal. That's what I get off on. When a really good story comes along, that's fantastic. I'm totally into it. Did you guys see CLERKS II? It's awesome! But most movies have more in common with DEJA VU. And in the words of William Shatner, I can't get behind that.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-19-2006, 08:42 AM:

Adam, I'm not sure why, but I had tears in my eyes laughing at your post. [thumbsup]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-19-2006, 10:24 AM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I'm saying that movies are limited in the stories that they can tell. Other media aren't. However, there are other things that can be accomplished on film that can't be in, say, books. So why not focus on those things which make film unique?

That's a contradictory statement.

Further, attempts to compare one story telling medium to another absolutely is an apples or oranges comparison.

quote: Mike Schindler
If you can tell a story in two hours, fantastic. If you can tell a story in ten minutes, even better. But like you said, ten minutes doesn't work for movies. The same thing's true if a story is ten hours. But literature can accomodate all three of those lengths, which is why it's a better medium for telling stories.

On a fundamental level, I'm going to reject any statement that claims one medium of story telling is better than another. Such statements are close-minded.

BTW, there are movies that run only 5 or 10 minutes. They're called "short films." There's even an Oscar category for them.

Books have their strengths. One of the greatest is showing internal monologue of the characters. Some novels are written entirely in the character's first person point of view. However, books are not without weaknesses either. They are not superior to movies or anything else, just different.

You can't read a 400 page novel and properly absorb its details in one two hour sitting like you can with a movie. The reader has to invest a lot more time to get through a book. Most people don't read books because the process seems like a lot of work to them. Or it just seems boring. The reading process is something you do alone, typically in a quiet, isolated environment. You have to visually flesh out the details using your imagination. The author tries to guide you in that, but ultimately every reader sees the story in a different way. That's not necessarily a good thing.

Movies have the strength of bringing a story to literal, visual life. Everyone in the audience sees the same thing. When the movie works well, the audience shares the same emotional experience. When an audience reacts the same way to the same event on screen it adds another dimension turning it into a participatory experience.

Since you metioned "the book is always better than the movie" cliché earlier, I'll top that with another. Whenever someone reads a new book that turns out to be really good, their reaction is often followed with the statement, "that would make a really good movie."

quote: Mike Schindler
All I'm saying is that I want movies to be better than they already are. Is there really anything wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with that statement at face value. The direction where you are taking it is where I have to disagree. I disagree with that statement you attribute to director John McTiernan where he claims movies are limited by story telling conventions and need to branch off elsewhere.

I really disagree with it strongly based on the context that it is somehow meant to defend the film making style of Domino and lots of other recent "all style no substance" movies.

Very often the over-the-top camera moves and hyper editing we've already seen in countless other movies is just there to mask a very weak story line and paper thin characters. I suppose the directors think if they make the audience feel like they're having an epileptic seizure it will hide the fact they're actually watching a shitty movie.

The "mannerism" period of art in the 16th century is a good analogy to mention.

Mannerism worked against the balance of paintings made earlier in the Renaissance. Proportions of figures were exaggerated, sometimes to extremes in attempts to make the figures appear more beautiful or heroic. In the end, that school of painting/drawing style was rejected. Viewers were put off at a distance by such paintings. They couldn't relate to them at all. Some good ideas came from the mannerist movement, and those ideas lived on in the more emotional yet more realistically drawn works of art in the Baroque period.

Film makers like Tony Scott, Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer and several others are the movie industry's current crop of "mannerists." Everything tends to be seen from extreme camera angles masked with pretty gradient filters with the finished shots hyper edited to oblivion. Most of the people in those movies are model pretty. On top of that, such film makers play very loosely with what is even physically possible or plausible in reality, often crossing the line into just plain bullshit territory. In the end, that lack of grounded realism, lack of character and lack of tripod just pushes audiences away from being able to get involved with the story.

Look at the recent success of Casino Royale. It's the best James Bond movie made in 30 years. A major key to its success was a "back to the basics" approach. Just try to do a credible job adapting the novel. That seemed to be enough. The movie ended up with an incredible Rotten Tomatoes score of 95%.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-19-2006, 10:59 AM:

I'm waiting for someone with epilepsy to have an actual seizure in our theater from watching all of the flashing and strobing on the screen.

Imagine having a "People with epilepsy should not watch this movie" disclaimer on all of Tony Scott's movies.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-19-2006, 12:23 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
That's a contradictory statement.

No, it's not. The things that I was thinking of that film can do have nothing to do with telling stories. But you make some good points as to how some stories can be more effectively told as movies. So if movies are going to be stuck in their current rut of storytelling, why not at least tell stories that only they can? I would argue that that is not currently the case, with films like CASINO ROYALE as evidence.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I disagree with that statement you attribute to director John McTiernan where he claims movies are limited by story telling conventions and need to branch off elsewhere.

But really, why shouldn't they? The worst that can happen is some bad movies get made. What I think would ultimately happen is filmmakers would learn something new about the medium, and bring that back to the more conventional movies, making them better. As long as good movies like CASINO ROYALE and CLERKS II continue to be made, where's the problem with someone like Tony Scott trying something different. Does the world really need DEJA VU? It feels like I've seen that movie a million times before. [Wink]

Why doesn't he try something different instead?

Your Mannerism argument is interesting. While I don't agree with you on how it applies to today's movies, you mention how despite its failure, the elements that work were adopted by later artists. If that is the end result of McTiernan's theory in practice, then I would consider it to be a success and worthwhile.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
I'm waiting for someone with epilepsy to have an actual seizure in our theater from watching all of the flashing and strobing on the screen.

That actually happened with an episode of POKEMON in Japan. If you look at the clip, it seems pretty tame, but I guess that particular pattern of flashing colors is enough to trigger it.

[ 12-19-2006, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Mike Schindler ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-19-2006, 03:24 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
As long as good movies like CASINO ROYALE and CLERKS II continue to be made, where's the problem with someone like Tony Scott trying something different.

That's the problem. He isn't doing anything different. He, like so many other guys making action movies these days, is merely using the old Michael Bay/John Woo overblown style to try to hide the weaknesses in the story. They believe if they make the camera shot look cool that will be enough to keep the audience going along with the story. More explosions! More cars flipping through the air! Tits! I need tits on the set! Now!!!

At the core, it's bullshit film making. There's nothing new being shown. It's all just technique being used as shtick to string together a series of action set pieces and embellish further upon them.

Those rapid editing sequences with white flashes of over-exposed film date back to 1980's music videos. The wide landscape shots using dark gradient filters and circular polarizer filters to amplify the light to dark shift in the sky has been seen in hundreds of car commercials (and music videos). Animated type on the screen is nothing new either. There's lot of other very obvious camera and editing technique being used to pretty-up action movies.

The trick is that sort of thing needs to be used sparingly and in a subtle manner. Tony Scott (and others) seem to prefer pounding viewers in the face with it like a baseball bat. Further, such techniques should be only be used when it serves some purpose to the story. In many of these recent action movies these flashy techniques are just thrown anywhere.

quote: Mike Schindler
While I don't agree with you on how it applies to today's movies, you mention how despite its failure, the elements that work were adopted by later artists. If that is the end result of McTiernan's theory in practice, then I would consider it to be a success and worthwhile.

No. McTiernan's theory is to go even further with this all style no substance baloney and drop the framework of the story altogether. I don't agree with that -at least not in the context of people paying $7 to $12 per ticket to watch it in a conventional movie theater.

The failure in mannerism is it totally put off the human element. People couldn't relate to what they were seeing. The same is true for these manneristic action movies. The characters are idealized beyond what is realistic for any actual human being. Viewers don't relate to them. Further, those characters are often put into situations that are implausible and do things that are physically impossible. The events in the movies are embellished to death with odd camera angles and edit schemes as severe as any spastic movie video or car commercial. These manneristic action movies don't care about suspension of disbelief. Gunshot through the skull? Our star can survive it! Fall from 10000 feet? Our star can survive it!

It's almost like these kinds of movies are trying to one-up various music videos or the experience one gets from playing a violent video game. There's no point to it. The blatant overuse of technique in these movies makes me think of that phrase from Shakespeare's Macbeth ..."it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-19-2006, 05:09 PM:

quote:
That's the problem. He isn't doing anything different. He, like so many other guys making action movies these days, is merely using the old Michael Bay/John Woo overblown style to try to hide the weaknesses in the story. They believe if they make the camera shot look cool that will be enough to keep the audience going along with the story. More explosions! More cars flipping through the air! Tits! I need tits on the set! Now!!!

Personally I've never seen anything like DOMINO. At least, not to that extent. Bay, Woo, and Scott all have very distinct styles, and I see very little of them in each other.

I somewhat agree with you in regards to Bay and Woo. But I don't think they're trying to hide a bad story. It's more of a case of the story being a means to do all of the cool shit that they want to do. They've pretty much both come out and said that. And I don't really see that as being a problem. Because really, who doesn't like flipping cars and explosions? If there is a problem with these movies, it's that the story often gets in the way of what the filmmakers really want to do. But they use a story to make their movie fit into that formal box that all mainstream movies have to fit in.

As far as Tony Scott is concerned, particularly with DOMINO, I don't think that's the case. He did want to tell a story, and this is the best way he knew how. In my opinion, there isn't really anything gratuitous in that movie.

But getting back to what you call "bullshit filmmaking," yeah, I can't really argue with the points you're making. If you don't like it, you don't like it. I do, but that's just me. When I go to see a movie, I'm usually not looking for substance, because I know I'm just setting myself up for disappointment. When I get it, it's like a bonus. But as I've said before, I generally go to see movies for the bling. Because that's what movies are really good at. TV is where I usually go to give my brain a workout. Shows like BATTLESTAR GALACTICA give me a lot more to chew on intellectually than 99% of the movies out there.

quote: Bobby Henderson
No. McTiernan's theory is to go even further with this all style no substance baloney and drop the framework of the story altogether. I don't agree with that -at least not in the context of people paying $7 to $12 per ticket to watch it in a conventional movie theater.

I think the idea is that by dropping the framework of story we'll free ourselves up to finding an even greater level of substance somewhere down the line. The thing that excites me about movies like DOMINO is that I can see people kinda starting to figure out how to do that. That's cool. As far as the venue is concerned, I don't get it. What do you mean?

quote:
The failure in mannerism is it totally put off the human element. People couldn't relate to what they were seeing. The same is true for these manneristic action movies. The characters are idealized beyond what is realistic for any actual human being. Viewers don't relate to them. Further, those characters are often put into situations that are implausible and do things that are physically impossible. The events in the movies are embellished to death with odd camera angles and edit schemes as severe as any spastic movie video or car commercial. These manneristic action movies don't care about suspension of disbelief. Gunshot through the skull? Our star can survive it! Fall from 10000 feet? Our star can survive it!

I don't think this is a problem based on the fact that the type of movie you're describing generally has a really large audience.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-19-2006, 08:34 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Personally I've never seen anything like DOMINO. At least, not to that extent. Bay, Woo, and Scott all have very distinct styles, and I see very little of them in each other.

Um, no. No they do not have very distinct styles. Tony Scott. Michael Bay. Simon West. McG. Louis Leteirrier, etc. They are all cut from the same school of bullshit film-making.

The only filmmakers that seem somewhat immune to that kind of thing are Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. Those guys are still best served if they would bother to drop the really tired bullshit John Woo camera moves and do their own thing. They have more talent than any of the guys I previously mentioned. Why copy a lesser filmmaker if that is the case?

The whole Tony Scott/John Woo/Michael Bay school of movie making seems to be: let's just make the shot look pretty and screw how implausible the whole scene and movie on the whole may be.

At least Tony Scott's brother, Ridley at least tries to some limited extent to keep the story grounded enough in reality to suspend disbelief.

Tony Scott has largely been a bad second act to his far more talented brother Ridley. At least Ridley Scott knows enough how to balance style to story in order to allow any talented actor to show his/her talents on screen. Even still, he got overlooked for the Best Director Oscar for Gladiator in favor of Steven Soderbergh back in 2000. How many movie theaters are currently showing Ridley's current work A Good Year (starring Russell Crowe)? Any?

Sorry to say this, but that whole Toyota car commercial style of filmmaking has become very very old hat. It is a cliché and a very very bad one at that.

quote: Mike Schindler
I somewhat agree with you in regards to Bay and Woo. But I don't think they're trying to hide a bad story. It's more of a case of the story being a means to do all of the cool shit that they want to do.

I take it you never saw the train wreck known as Windtalkers. Very painful to watch. Even more painful than some of the worst Karaoke I've seen. The part where Christian Slater gets decapitated has to be one of the most goofily bad parts in a movie I have ever seen in my life.

quote: Mike Schindler
I think the idea is that by dropping the framework of story we'll free ourselves up to finding an even greater level of substance somewhere down the line.

Greater level of substance? Or just an excuse to "phone in" the job and jerk off the audience with an absolutely absurd excuse of a movie?

quote: Mike Schindler
I don't think this is a problem based on the fact that the type of movie you're describing generally has a really large audience.

Again, Domino, the so-called "masterpiece" you mention had a mere 17% rating on Rotten Tomatoes' website and racked up a rather dismal earnings total in box office receipts. Deja Vu (the original subject of this thread) is not doing very much better either.

Overall, I think guys like Tony Scott, Michael Bay, McG and others that subscribe to this over-ballyhooed form of bullshit jerk off film making are only kept employed by pure good ol boy network crony ism. It's who you know, right? There's filmmakers out there who have 100,000,000 times the talent of any Michael Bay or Tony Scott but can't get their shot over the bullshit politics involved in Hollywood.

So ultimately, I have no sympathy for Hollywood if it gets steamrolled by British cinema, French Cinema. Bollywood or anything else. They have run a non-competitive network of crony ism for so long already they deserve to get their heads served to them on a plate.

[ 12-20-2006, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-20-2006, 01:15 AM:

This discussion has taken a really weird turn, but it's still interesting.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Um, no. No they do not have very distinct styles. Tony Scott. Michael Bay. Simon West. McG. Louis Leteirrier, etc. They are all cut from the same school of bullshit film-making.

The only filmmakers that seem somewhat immune to that kind of thing are Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez.

That's a really broad group of people to lump together into the same style of filmmaking, and two really weird exceptions. I guess you could say that they're similar in the sense that they all make action movies, but each of the people you mention are very unique in relation to each other. And Tarantino and Rodriguez? Is Tarantino even an action filmmaker? How did they get thrown into this?

quote: Bobby Henderson
Those guys are still best served if they would bother to drop the really tired bullshit John Woo camera moves and do their own thing.

I guess Rodriguez and Woo both use slow motion, so they're similar in that sense, but any shared aesthetic they might have is negated by the fact that their editing styles couldn't be more different. And I can't see any similarity in the camera work of Woo's movies and Tarantino's.

quote: Bobby Henderson
They have more talent than any of the guys I previously mentioned.

Agreed.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Why fucking copy a lesser filmmaker if that is the case?

Tarantino, who quite likely is the best filmmaker in the world right now, is great at adaptation. He watches a lot of movies and knows what works and what doesn't. He then takes what he learns from all those different lesser filmmakers and fuses the elements that work into one big giant supermovie.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The whole Tony Scott/John Woo/Michael Bay school of movie making seems to be: let's just make the shot look pretty and screw how implausible the whole scene and movie on the whole may be.

I guess I sort of see what you're saying, but I don't think this is an indicator of style, and I think context has a lot to do with whether or not this level of implausibility is warrented. Take Scott, for example. In ENEMY OF THE STATE, there's the whole video surveillance camera thing, which is dumb as all hell. It's a stupid plot device used to get the writers out of a corner they painted themselves into. DEJA VU has that shit too. But DOMINO is a fairly broad comedy, and the implausible elements in that movie are done because they're funny. In that movie, it's appropriate. KILL BILL is filled to the brim with stuff like that, and it wouldn't work without it.

quote: Bobby Henderson
At least Tony Scott's brother, Ridley at least tries to some limited extent to keep the story grounded enough in reality to suspend disbelief.

I think it's way more than limited. He's like James Cameron. Generally, his movies are completely grounded in reality.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Tony Scott has largely been a bad second act to his far more talented brother Ridley.

What's interesting about their careers is how one has gotten better while the other has gotten worse. ALIEN is a fracking masterpiece (and don't ask me to explain why, or we'll be here for another week), while shit like DAYS OF THUNDER is unwatchable. But nowadays, Ridley is getting super-formulaic. A GOOD YEAR? Not for Ridley. Meanwhile, Tony continues to grow with each new movie (except for DEJA VU, of course).

quote: Bobby Henderson
At least Ridley Scott knows enough how to balance style to story in order to allow any talented actor to show his/her talents on screen.

Meanwhile, the people behind the camera are getting the short end of the stick with this standard "over, over, two-shot" bullshit.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Even still, he got overlooked for the Best Director Oscar for Gladiator in favor of Steven Soderbergh back in 2000.

That, to me, is justice at its finest.

quote: Bobby Henderson
How many movie theaters are currently showing Ridley's current work A Good Year (starring Russell Crowe)? Any?

I'm missing your point, but I think the reason behind that is that the movie's crap.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I take it you never saw the train wreck known as Windtalkers.

Sure, there are exceptions. Sometimes these guys do want to tell stories. And like you say, they aren't very good at it (although I liked WINDTALKERS). But the other thing that happens is, in an attempt to put content first, they tone down their style. That's one of the reasons why WINDTALKERS didn't work as well as it could have. It was the least John Woo movie John Woo has ever made. Then again, McG has WE ARE MARSHALL coming out on Friday, and that's a movie which is all about the story. It's very stylistically reserved, and I think that was the right choice. And it's not bad.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Greater level of substance? Or just an excuse to "phone in" the job and jerk off the audience with an absolutely absurd, bullshit excuse of a movie?

I'm not denying that this happens. The result is crap like DEJA VU. But those aren't the movies that I'm talking about.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Overall, I think guys like Tony Scott, Michael Bay, McG and others that subscribe to this over-ballyhooed form of bullshit jerk off film making are only kept employed by pure good ol boy network crony ism. It's who you know, right? There's filmmakers out there who have 100,000,000 times the talent of any Michael Bay or Tony Scott but can't get their shot over the bullshit politics involved in Hollywood.'

Generally, I think that Hollywood couldn't care less about talent. They're more interested in money. And there's no denying that the filmmakers you mention make money. Yeah, DOMINO flopped, but that's an anomoly in Scott's career.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-20-2006, 05:53 AM:

not having seen deja vu (wait--wasn't there another film by that name?) i just dropped in to see what the "off topic" was about.

i've thought it before, and i'll say it again: mike schindler is about the only one who consistently says interesting, intelligent things in the review forum. hell, i haven't seen domino. i don't know if i'd like it. but i like mike's take on it.

carry on, mike.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-20-2006, 09:34 AM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I guess you could say that they're similar in the sense that they all make action movies, but each of the people you mention are very unique in relation to each other. And Tarantino and Rodriguez? Is Tarantino even an action filmmaker? How did they get thrown into this?

Outside of the exceptions of Tarantino and Rodriguez, the others I mentioned are not very unique at all.

I throw Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez both into the mix since they have derived a significant level of influence from John Woo and have publicly stated they are big fans of Woo's films. To Tarantino's credit he tones the John Woo copying down quite a bit and pretty much does his own thing. I also think Tarantino's directing talents are far superior to that of Woo.

Rodriquez is more shamelessly obvious in copying the style of John Woo. Watch one of Woo's movies and then watch El Mariachi or Desperado and you'll see the similarities. It's only in recent years that Robert Rodriguez has started stepping away from the John Woo style. Thankfully he didn't try using much of that crap at all in making Sin City, preferring to be extremely faithful to the style of Frank Miller's graphic novels instead.

quote: Mike Schindler
DEJA VU has that shit too. But DOMINO is a fairly broad comedy, and the implausible elements in that movie are done because they're funny. In that movie, it's appropriate. KILL BILL is filled to the brim with stuff like that, and it wouldn't work without it.

The exception with Kill Bill is that the characters are fleshed out to provide some reason why they can do the otherwise impossible things they do. The Matrix provided the same sort of thing. But in movies like The Transporter and its sequel nothing is done to explain the implausible things that happen. The events just happen because the folks making the movie thought it would look cool on screen.

quote: Mike Schindler
I'm missing your point, but I think the reason behind that is that the movie's crap.

Yes, it A Good Year isn't any good. But my point is even Ridley Scott isn't able to earn the acclaim of directors like Steven Soderbergh because he sometimes allows style to get too much in the way of the story. I think that happened with Gladiator to a certain degree. The movie still won some Oscars (including Best Picture). But Soderbergh did a more compelling job in directing Traffic, and honestly that movie overall was actually more deserving of the Best Picture Oscar.

A lot of actors don't like over blown style either. All the rapid cuts, flashy camera moves and other nonsense gets in the way of a good acting performance. Some of the best movies of all time allow the camera shot run for a considerable amount of time uncut in order to allow an actor to fully express what's going on with the character. That's not something you see very much in action movies these days.

quote: Mike Schindler
Then again, McG has WE ARE MARSHALL coming out on Friday, and that's a movie which is all about the story. It's very stylistically reserved, and I think that was the right choice. And it's not bad.

Early reviews don't look very good for We Are Marshall. While it may not have as many camera and editing spasms as a Charlie's Angels installment, critics are saying McG has basically assembled every football movie cliché together as if it were clip art and then added some emotional flailing.

A lot of these action movie directors are coming from backgrounds of shooting TV commercials and music videos. That spastic style seems to work okay in those mediums. Any more than small bits of it in full length movies comes off as pretty silly.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-20-2006, 04:04 PM:

Carl, thank you very much for the support. I was starting to think that I might be as crazy as everyone thinks I am. [thumbsup]

quote: Bobby Henderson
Outside of the exceptions of Tarantino and Rodriguez, the others I mentioned are not very unique at all.

Cosmically speaking, Mr. Pibb tastes like Pibb Xtra. But you won't find me drinking Pibb Xtra anytime soon, and I LOVED Mr. Pibb. What I'm trying to say is that it seems more and more that your problems are not so much with filmmakers in the genre as the genre itself. That's cool. Just because I like action movies doesn't mean you have to.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Rodriquez is more shamelessly obvious in copying the style of John Woo. Watch one of Woo's movies and then watch El Mariachi or Desperado and you'll see the similarities.

Like I said before, I think they shoot things similarly, but cut things differently. That makes all the difference in the world.

quote:
Thankfully he didn't try using much of that crap at all in making Sin City, preferring to be extremely faithful to the style of Frank Miller's graphic novels instead.

So in other words, it was OK for him to copy Miller's style because Miller is worthy of being copied?

quote: Bobby Henderson
But in movies like The Transporter and its sequel nothing is done to explain the implausible things that happen. The events just happen because the folks making the movie thought it would look cool on screen.

But again, the Transporter movies were comedies, and that stuff did look cool on screen, so they were able to get away with it.

quote: Bobby Henderson
But my point is even Ridley Scott isn't able to earn the acclaim of directors like Steven Soderbergh because he sometimes allows style to get too much in the way of the story. I think that happened with Gladiator to a certain degree.

As much as I couldn't care less about GLADIATOR, I have to disagree. I never noticed style getting in the way of story. I didn't really notice style at all. Or story, for that matter, which I think is why Soderbergh is more deserving of the Oscar. Gladiator could have benefitted from style. And style is why Soderbergh won the Oscar.

quote:
But Soderbergh did a more compelling job in directing Traffic, and honestly that movie overall was actually more deserving of the Best Picture Oscar.

Truer words were never spoken.

quote: Bobby Henderson
A lot of actors don't like over blown style either. All the rapid cuts, flashy camera moves and other nonsense gets in the way of a good acting performance. Some of the best movies of all time allow the camera shot run for a considerable amount of time uncut in order to allow an actor to fully express what's going on with the character.

The counter-argument to this is that many great performances were crafted in the editing room. That's what Vittorio de Sica was all about. I have a friend who's an editor, and she always gets mad about how Oscar-winning actors never thank their editors in their acceptance speeches.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Early reviews don't look very good for We Are Marshall. While it may not have as many camera and editing spasms as a Charlie's Angels installment, critics are saying McG has basically assembled every football movie cliché together as if it were clip art and then added some emotional flailing.

I'm not gonna defend WE ARE MARSHALL, because ultimately, it's not really worth defending all that much. But my point still stands that when a filmmaker wants to tell a story, he adapts with varying degrees of success.

quote: Bobby Henderson
A lot of these action movie directors are coming from backgrounds of shooting TV commercials and music videos. That spastic style seems to work okay in those mediums. Any more than small bits of it in full length movies comes off as pretty silly.

I agree with you, but I think the reason is that they're still figuring out how to do it. If you look at Joseph Kahn's work, his music videos are "off the hook," if you will. TORQUE, not so much. But he just said, "Frack it!" and decided to go the whole nine, and the result is a very silly, and very interesting experiment.

On the other hand you have someone like McG, who toned down his shit just enough to make it work in long form, and the result is some really good stuff. The Charlie's Angels movies are very silly. So is FASTLANE. But McG's a silly guy. His name's McG. And silly is what those movies and that TV show needed.

The next step, which is really hard, is to take that style, and get rid of the silly. When SCHINDLER'S LIST gets remade using the McG aesthetic and people are calling it better than the original, that's when we know the medium has reached a new level of awesomeness.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-20-2006, 04:22 PM:

[sleep]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-20-2006, 08:52 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
What I'm trying to say is that it seems more and more that your problems are not so much with filmmakers in the genre as the genre itself. That's cool. Just because I like action movies doesn't mean you have to.

Nice try, but wrong. I like action movies. I just happen to like action movies that are at least somewhat believable and have camera angles that don't resemble a grand mal epileptic seizure for the film's duration.

quote: Mike Schindler
Like I said before, I think they shoot things similarly, but cut things differently. That makes all the difference in the world.

John Woo has his signature camera moves, the biggest one being something to overly glorify a character's entrance or exit in a scene in super slo motion fashion -with two or three dissolves to add more "sizzle" to the shot. Rodriguez has copied that exactly in more than a couple films. A lot of other directors have lifted that camera shot as well. One would have to be severely mentally retarded not to pick up on the fact that sort of thing is being shamelessly copied.

quote: Mike Schindler
So in other words, it was OK for him to copy Miller's style because Miller is worthy of being copied?

???

Sin City was a graphic novel written and illustrated by Frank Miller. It's Frank Miller's freaking idea in the form of an already published work. Why shouldn't Rodriguez try to stay faithful to that? Rodriguez and John Woo didn't invent Sin City!.

quote: Mike Schindler
When SCHINDLER'S LIST gets remade using the McG aesthetic and people are calling it better than the original, that's when we know the medium has reached a new level of awesomeness.

WTF?

JFC, I can just see it now. Oskar Schindler and concentration camp commander Amon Goeth get suspended on wires and have a fight to the death up in the sky over the camp. Nothing is done to explain why they can now fly. Fight choreography is done by Yuen Wo Ping and the wires are removed in post.

More likely, this type of hyper-absurd film making will be looked upon 10 years from now as being just as stupidly silly as the spandex covered hair bands like White Lion, Slaughter and Steelhouse from the late 1980s.

Just give it another 10 years and you'll probably be embarrassed that you liked this sort of shit at one time.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-21-2006, 09:42 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Nice try, but wrong. I like action movies. I just happen to like action movies that are at least somewhat believable and have camera angles that don't resemble a grand mal epileptic seizure for the film's duration.

Specifically, what action movies do you like?

quote: Bobby Henderson
John Woo has his signature camera moves, the biggest one being something to overly glorify a character's entrance or exit in a scene in super slo motion fashion -with two or three dissolves to add more "sizzle" to the shot. Rodriguez has copied that exactly in more than a couple films.

I see your point, but I was thinking more in terms of Rodriguez' action sequences, which are like Woo action scenes with rhythm.

quote:
Sin City was a graphic novel written and illustrated by Frank Miller. It's Frank Miller's freaking idea in the form of an already published work. Why shouldn't Rodriguez try to stay faithful to that? Rodriguez and John Woo didn't invent Sin City!.

I don't have any problem with that. My point is, what's wrong with Rodriguez copying Woo too?

quote: Bobby Henderson
JFC, I can just see it now. Oskar Schindler and concentration camp commander Amon Goeth get suspended on wires and have a fight to the death up in the sky over the camp. Nothing is done to explain why they can now fly. Fight choreography is done by Yuen Wo Ping and the wires are removed in post.

That's not exactly the style I was talking about. But even if it were, the movie you describe sounds very silly (although I do know some people who would call it better than the original). My whole point is that the next step is to get rid of the silly. I don't know how to do that, and I'm not sure anyone else really does either. It's all theoretical at this point. But who's to say that it can't happen?

You talk about how these styles have elements which people can't relate to in the real world. The same can be said of cuts. But somehow, people accept them. That was a big deal back in the day. It was a highly experimental concept, and there was nothing to suggest that it would work. But it did. So why can't this stuff work?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2006, 06:58 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Specifically, what action movies do you like?

Casino Royale is the best action movie I've seen this year. I'll probably get the DVD when it is released.

Some of my more recent action movie DVD purchases:
A History of Violence
Apocalypse Now: The Secret Dossier
Batman Begins: Deluxe Edition
Sin City: Recut, Extended, Unrated
Collateral

I have lots of other action movies in my DVD collection. I just haven't been buying very many DVDs at all over the last couple of years. A good number of the action movies I have in my collection are older or somewhat older films. Out of younger directors who have pretty obvious visual styles, I like David Fincher quite a bit. Luc Besson and a few others are pretty good too.

quote: Mike Schindler
I don't have any problem with that. My point is, what's wrong with Rodriguez copying Woo too?

The camera/editing shtick is bad enough when Woo is doing it himself. It's one of the things which makes Broken Arrow and M:I:2 unbearable to watch. Then it just gets silly when other people copy the same moves. They're repetitive, we've seen it a thousand times before already, it's time for them to do something else. The only way I could see anyone justifying continued copying of that sort is if it were done in an outright parody.

quote: Mike Schindler
You talk about how these styles have elements which people can't relate to in the real world. The same can be said of cuts. But somehow, people accept them.

Film editing has been around as long as movies have been shown to audiences. Blatant ignorance of the laws of gravity, physics and a lot of other shit in recent action movies is a fairly new thing. It's silly. Some of the fault for this rests in CGI and various producers wanting to copy crap out of The Matrix. Then they try to blind the audience with all sorts of seizure cam action and editing -either to try to make the implausible not so silly or to just cover up a really weak story. In many cases they're doing both.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-21-2006, 08:18 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Film editing has been around as long as movies have been shown to audiences. Blatant ignorance of the laws of gravity, physics and a lot of other shit in recent action movies is a fairly new thing. It's silly. Some of the fault for this rests in CGI and various producers wanting to copy crap out of The Matrix. Then they try to blind the audience with all sorts of seizure cam action and editing -either to try to make the implausible not so silly or to just cover up a really weak story. In many cases they're doing both.

I guess what I consider to be the style we're talking about is what you refer to as the "seizure cam action and editing." Defying the laws of physics can work well depending on the story you tell, like in comedies, for example. But I don't consider that to be part of the aesthetic.

As far as the camera work and editing is concerned, What I see it used to cover up most is bad action. But when done well, it can greatly enhance the story you're telling.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 12-21-2006, 11:56 PM:

Would the real Siskel and Ebert please stand up???

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-22-2006, 02:49 AM:

quote: Carl Martin
mike schindler is about the only one who consistently says interesting, intelligent things in the review forum.

I agree, and that's one of the reasons why Bill Kallay and I chose to post his Top 10 of 2005 list on our website. It shouldn't come as a surprise to find that he included "Domino."

quote:
9. "Domino" by Tony Scott

Scott perfects the ideas he had in "Man On Fire." The result is a groundbreaking barrage of non-narrative imagery which works on a purely visceral level. The best edited film in years. In terms of form, this is where I've always hoped the medium would eventually get to.

Now, Schindler and I have gotten into it over whether or not "Superman" (1978) is a great movie. Not quite as intensely as this debate over the merits of "Domino," but we've gone head-to-head over it nonetheless. This, of course, is the one instance where his critique was wrong. [Razz]

All will be forgiven if he writes a Best of '06 for me. [Smile]

quote: Bobby Henderson
Film editing has been around as long as movies have been shown to audiences.

Actually, it hasn't. Early "films" were single-take deals because, well, the concept of editing (or "montage" as the Soviets defined it) hadn't been thought of yet. The use of editing, once introduced and embraced, pushed the medium to new levels, and this sort of thing is what I believe Schindler is getting at when he discusses films like "Domino" and how the medium of film should be explored in such a fashion whereby filmmakers push it to new and different levels and use the medium in a way that cannot be done in other storytelling mediums.

I have to state that this thread (even if drifting off topic) has got to be one of the most interesting in a long time. A couple of the postings have bordered on unnecessary ridicule (such as Adam's posting of Schindler's profile) but at this point it's pretty much a Henderson vs. Schindler thing. And, thankfully, both are extremely articulate and passionate in their ability to communicate. Can you imagine if this were Bill Gabel vs. Gordon McLeod?! [Smile]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-22-2006, 04:08 AM:

Interesting points of view:thumbsup:

One of my problems with formula films is the way they are made to conform with censorship clasifications ect, ok we can say shit three times and flash some tities and keep our m rating ect. mmm no wonder films are getting stale!

Trivia,
Tony and Riddly Scott have or had a rent a director company, mostly for Ads, I worked on a Tv film called "The Munsters Scarey Little Christmas" for Universal, which was directed by Ian Emes, that their company placed in the position.